Hi Miha,
thanks for responding... I see your point and I do understand the
reasons.
The thing was - in the table I was trying to update - the column of my
int_UID is not /can not be unique (i.e. it is not the ID column for
this table).
However in the situation when 2 users download the same info at the
same time from the db then attempt to insert at the same time, I
wanted the second user to update the table to know that a row had been
inserted since they downloaded the data... thus I was trying to force
0 rows affected back to try and fabricate a concurrency violation.
Thanks for confirming the behaviour that on a insert command the data
adapter will not respond to 0 rows affected by generating a
DBConcurrencyException. I can now tackle things in a different way.. I
think what I must do instead is to raise an error in sql then catch it
in .net
Again thanks for the help
Suzanne
"Miha Markic" <miha at rthand com> wrote in message news:<#f**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>...
Hi Suzanne,
This is not a cuncurrency issue at all. Concurrency means that a user has
edited a record and saved it (or deleted) while you were editing the same
record.
Insert command can never produce a concurrency violation - that's why it is
never checked.
You shuld rather put a unique constraint on the column(s) and let database
throw you an unique constraint violation without any special code.
--
Miha Markic - RightHand .NET consulting & software development
miha at rthand com
www.rthand.com